"Celluloid Heroes" - DV Shoots For Film

[Xixax]

Here's a really ugly method of displaying a really great article:

I love this magazine and recommend it highly, even for the hobbyist... Subscriptions are worth every penny. Everybody search out a copy, and check them out on the web at http://www.emedialive.com

[mindfuck]

Cool article, thanks for posting it. Was it just me or did that guy seem to take a hell of a long time to get to the point of the article though?

[pete]

but aren't all of that de-interlaced stuff only good for a few laughs when played back on your computer monitor?  When played on tv aren't the images interlaced anyways?  (that's what they look like to me when I look at the suposedly prog-scanned GL1 images back onto the tv screen)--correct me if I'm wrong.
also, the guy somehow failed to bring up the biggest difference between miniDV and filmic images--you can't blow up miniDV, not even if it's at 24p--you can kind of if the movie calls for crude looking images like that new virus movie, but when blowing stuff up to 35mm people are going to see big ugly pixels.
and the gamma curve thing too--how dvx100 just throws this imitation effect but it's nowhere the flexibility nor the leverage film can provide, and let's not even get into sensitivity to light.
the article just seemed like an ad for dvx100 while at the same time taking cheap shots at hollywood.  bad article.

[Xixax]

I didn't get that at all. I didn't perceive it as more than a few very well spoken thoughts and observations about DV and film in general. And, it certainly wasn't a slam against film as a medium. The "hollywood slam" you allude to was really nothing more than the stuff we discuss here every day. Hollywood puts out a lot of shit, but so do indies. And, I think I'd agree with him. In a "desert island" setting, I'd choose indie films over Hollywood.

[aclockworkjj]

well, after reading this article....I am completely sold on the Panasonic...I don't really care if it was pervasive or not.....it was filled with good info. from all sides....it was a fun read, as I know I am still learning...so I like the "techie" type things....but I sure would like that camera sitting in my hands more than anything (well, almost..) right now.

thanks 4 the substription info too...

[Jeremy Blackman]

I am completely sold on the Panasonic

In general, I usually trust Panasonic more than anything else... Their 3-way shelf systems are.. mmm... very nice... (and cheap)...

[pete]

I didn't get that at all. I didn't perceive it as more than a few very well spoken thoughts and observations about DV and film in general. And, it certainly wasn't a slam against film as a medium. The "hollywood slam" you allude to was really nothing more than the stuff we discuss here every day. Hollywood puts out a lot of shit, but so do indies. And, I think I'd agree with him. In a "desert island" setting, I'd choose indie films over Hollywood.

yeah but our hollywood slam has never attributed the unacceptence of films made by miniDV to hollywood guys.  that has nothing to do with anything, miniDV cannot be played on the big screen because of its poor resolution, period, frame rate and the gamma curve don't come in until later.  but this guy's talking about miniDV as a form of protest and analogies to CD and records, without bringing up the reason people are still spending crapload of money on film is because miniDV, and really, DV in general, are still pretty far from the resolutions and light sensitivity of film.  Not to mention the study that shows how video generates an alpha state, or state of mild hypnosis, as opposed to film's state of reverie.

I've heard pretty good arguements against film before, I'm a big fan of Jon Jost.  I simply find the article very one-sided and it talks up a small breakthrough in miniDV technology (that's already been done in HD and digiBeta) unfairly, I don't even think the panasonic think it's ready to take on film.

[aclockworkjj]

yeah but our hollywood slam has never attributed the unacceptence of films made by miniDV to hollywood guys.  that has nothing to do with anything, miniDV cannot be played on the big screen because of its poor resolution, period, frame rate and the gamma curve don't come in until later.  but this guy's talking about miniDV as a form of protest and analogies to CD and records, without bringing up the reason people are still spending crapload of money on film is because miniDV, and really, DV in general, are still pretty far from the resolutions and light sensitivity of film.  Not to mention the study that shows how video generates an alpha state, or state of mild hypnosis, as opposed to film's state of reverie.

I've heard pretty good arguements against film before, I'm a big fan of Jon Jost.  I simply find the article very one-sided and it talks up a small breakthrough in miniDV technology (that's already been done in HD and digiBeta) unfairly, I don't even think the panasonic think it's ready to take on film.

fuck it man....if you have content...that's all that matters...I don't give a shit if I watch something on the big screen or at home...content is where it's at...no budget, $100 BILLION budget...it matters not.  You are just soundin' foolish now...just cause something can't be played at your local multi-plex, doesn't necessarly mean it's not worth watchin'...no matter the format....

Yeah...GO PANASONIC!!!!!

Not to mention the study that shows how video generates an alpha state, or state of mild hypnosis, as opposed to film's state of reverie.

explain this better, cause seriously what I hear is..." I just read this article, which mentioned this,  and this is how I feel".....

[Ghostboy]

It's true. Your brain reacts to video (digital, TV or otherwise) in a completely different way than it does to film. Film produces a state related to revery, while video causes something more along the lines of hypnosis.

I'm all for DV, and I agree with the point of the article, but that guy needs to do more research. I guess it's more of an op-ed piece, though. He spends a whole page on analogies and then says he doesn't have enough space for testimonials. Anyway, it's true that the interlacing and frame rate is a big difference between film and video, but he neglects to point out that video imagery is captured electronically, while film is an entirely chemical process.

Anyway, I REALLY REALLY want that Panasonic camera. If my XL-1 weren't so antiquated, I'd sell it on eBay and buy the Panasonic. Oh well, one of the key aspects of indie filmmaking is making great product with what you have at hand.

[pete]

I didn't say any local multiplex, and I never said miniDV is worthless, I just bought a vx2000.  I do value content over form most of the time as well, but this guy is saying that the playing field is leveled because of the new panasonic dvx100 and that's simply not true.  it's a miniDV camcorder that might do a little better imitation of film than the rest of the miniDV camcorders, much what does that really mean?  Just because I'm skeptical about the camera, all of a sudden I'm sounding foolish?
secondly, when you watch something on video, the frame rate is higher, the color is less vivid, things are projected at you instead of flickering images projecting back onto a big screen that projects back to you, so after viewing it a while, it's like staring at a piece of furniture (and c'mon, TV essentially is a piece of furniture) so your brain decides nothing much is going on and turns it off, you go off in a hypnotidal state and everything fills in retroactively, like a dream, after you "wake up" again.  this is why sometimes videos take several more sittings to watch through than a film in a theater, and this is also why subliminal messages are so effective.
now, panasonic camera's ability to do the gamma curve and prog-scan and its 24 fps don't really have much of an effect if it just ends up being played on people's tv, because your brain then is still only receiving electronic signals.  so I don't really see how this camera is going to revolutionize filmmaking or whatever, it's not doing anything any other formats of digital camera hasn't attempted/ done already.  And still, film is better, crisper, more vivid, and much easier to project onto the big screen, by far.

fuck it man....if you have content...that's all that matters...I don't give a shit if I watch something on the big screen or at home...content is where it's at...no budget, $100 BILLION budget...it matters not.  You are just soundin' foolish now...just cause something can't be played at your local multi-plex, doesn't necessarly mean it's not worth watchin'...no matter the format....

Yeah...GO PANASONIC!!!!!

explain this better, cause seriously what I hear is..." I just read this article, which mentioned this,  and this is how I feel".....

[aclockworkjj]

Not to mention the study that shows how video generates an alpha state, or state of mild hypnosis, as opposed to film's state of reverie.

explain this better, cause seriously what I hear is..." I just read this article, which mentioned this,  and this is how I feel".....

secondly, when you watch something on video, the frame rate is higher, the color is less vivid, things are projected at you instead of flickering images projecting back onto a big screen that projects back to you, so after viewing it a while, it's like staring at a piece of furniture (and c'mon, TV essentially is a piece of furniture) so your brain decides nothing much is going on and turns it off, you go off in a hypnotidal state and everything fills in retroactively, like a dream, after you "wake up" again. this is why sometimes videos take several more sittings to watch through than a film in a theater

Thank you...well put.  (I was just tryin' to get you to elaborate.)

I'm all for DV,

Your last project, I saw the trailer....was that on DV or 16mm?  Everyone was talkin' like it was 16mm....I didn't think it was.... but then again, I only saw it in a little computer window.

[Pastor Parsley]

when you watch something on video, the frame rate is higher, the color is less vivid, things are projected at you instead of flickering images projecting back onto a big screen that projects back to you, so after viewing it a while, it's like staring at a piece of furniture (and c'mon, TV essentially is a piece of furniture) so your brain decides nothing much is going on and turns it off, you go off in a hypnotidal state and everything fills in retroactively, like a dream, after you "wake up" again.  this is why sometimes videos take several more sittings to watch through than a film in a theater, and this is also why subliminal messages are so effective.

This simply isn't true.  There is absolutely no difference between something being projected at you versus being reflected to you.  Your brain can't tell the difference.  This is a well know fact.  It can tell the difference between images being relayed to you in their entirety frame by frame from those being set up on the screen line by line like on your scanning television.  Sure DV has lower resolution, poor contrast, etc.  As far as the 'hypnotidal state' are concerned I'd like to see your source.